Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 968 F.2d 647 - Lumber Exchange Building Limited Partnership Lumber Exchange Building Limited Partnership v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York

Lumber Exchange Building Limited Partnership Lumber Exchange Building Limited Partnership v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York’s Empirical Analysis

968 F.2d 647 · 1992

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
February 2013
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 9 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably Bonner Mall Partnership v. U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. (1993), In the Matter of Woodbrook Associates, Debtor-Appellant (1994)

12 federal appellate · 9 district ·

600199220002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Bryson Properties Xviii Travelers Insurance Company v. Bryson Properties Xviii · Hanson v. First Bank of South Dakota, N.A. · Wegner v. Grunewaldt · Greystone III Joint Venture Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Greystone III Joint Venture

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[t]he standard for choosing conversion or dismissal based on “the best interest of creditors and the estate” implies a balancing test to be applied through case-by-case analysis. In the end, the determination is a matter for sound judicial discretion.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We review de novo the propriety of classification”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “There is some authority for the proposition that a plan may classify trade creditors separately from, and treat them more generously than, other creditors if doing so is necessary to a debtor’s ongoing business. See Hanson, 828 F.2d at 1313 ; Greystone, 948 F.2d at 141. The integrity of Lumber Exchange’s argument, however, is belied here by the plan’s own terms. The proposed plan treats trade creditors less generously, not more. Accordingly, we conclude that this proffered justification for separate classification is not legitimate.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.